Yet another "racial" confrontation with police, this time in

[Jenksismyhero]

No. They are just as human as us "normal" people.

 

Memory actually becomes less reliable in tests during high-stress situations so it might even be that they're less reliable than a randomly chosen witness.

 

Who is more likely to be accurate, the person that is in high stress situations frequently or the person who is doing it for the first time? I'm not saying that officers are going to be 100% accurate, but I think it's entirely fair to assume their ability to recall and restate facts accurately is better than your standard eye witness because of their experience. And again, they go through training on how to remain calm, keep an eye out, survey the scene, etc. Joe Schmo doesn't. Joe Schmo just happens to see something during his everyday life experience.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable. I don't know about this particular case but a lot of them would pass a polygraph with flying colors because they truly don't believe they are lying. They honestly believe they saw something completely different than what really happened.

 

The human mind/memory can be a messed up thing.

 

[StrangeSox]

Who is more likely to be accurate, the person that is in high stress situations frequently or the person who is doing it for the first time? I'm not saying that officers are going to be 100% accurate, but I think it's entirely fair to assume their ability to recall and restate facts accurately is better than your standard eye witness because of their experience. And again, they go through training on how to remain calm, keep an eye out, survey the scene, etc. Joe Schmo doesn't. Joe Schmo just happens to see something during his everyday life experience.

 

Why is it fair to assume that? Repetitive stress can permanently affect your mind. I wouldn't be surprised if it makes you less reliable over time, but I'd say find out what the research says instead of blindly assuming.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Why is it fair to assume that? Repetitive stress can permanently affect your mind. I wouldn't be surprised if it makes you less reliable over time, but I'd say find out what the research says instead of blindly assuming.

 

Because it's common sense and proven in every other area of life? When you do things repetitively, you tend to be better at them. Practice makes perfect and all that.

[StrangeSox]

"common sense" usually means "unsupported assertion/assumption"

[Jenksismyhero]

"common sense" usually means "unsupported assertion/assumption"

 

Who's going to take the time to do a study on that?

 

Why don't you think that's a logical assumption? Cops are trained on how to deal with emergencies, are they not? They're trained on the best way to analyze situations as they come upon them and/or as they happen, are they not? You don't think it's a logical assumption that that training would make them better equipped in those situations than everyday Joe Schmo? I'm not talking 100% of the time, i'm talking generally.

 

Let's put it this way, if cops aren't better, we have a serious issue with our training practices. They absolutely should be given that criminal convictions are predicated on their reports and recollections and testimony in court. That's a fundamental aspect of our judicial system.

[Balta1701]

Who's going to take the time to do a study on that?

 

Why don't you think that's a logical assumption? Cops are trained on how to deal with emergencies, are they not? They're trained on the best way to analyze situations as they come upon them and/or as they happen, are they not? You don't think it's a logical assumption that that training would make them better equipped in those situations than everyday Joe Schmo? I'm not talking 100% of the time, i'm talking generally.

 

Let's put it this way, if cops aren't better, we have a serious issue with our training practices. They absolutely should be given that criminal convictions are predicated on their reports and recollections and testimony in court. That's a fundamental aspect of our judicial system.

If your goal is to train people to fly, your problem is not with your training system when they are unable to fly.

[Jenksismyhero]

If your goal is to train people to fly, your problem is not with your training system when they are unable to fly.

 

Witnessing an event and recalling that memory is not an impossibility. SOME specifics and SOME recollections might be faulty, not EVERYTHING that someone sees. Eye witness testimony can be unreliable and sometimes inaccurate. But not ALL eye witness testimony.

[Balta1701]

Witnessing an event and recalling that memory is not an impossibility. SOME specifics and SOME recollections might be faulty, not EVERYTHING that someone sees. Eye witness testimony can be unreliable and sometimes inaccurate. But not ALL eye witness testimony.

But you can't tell which parts will be inaccurate unless you have some other bit of data, such as videotape, to support it, and that goes for all eyewitness testimony.

[Jenksismyhero]

But you can't tell which parts will be inaccurate unless you have some other bit of data, such as videotape, to support it, and that goes for all eyewitness testimony.

 

So you're suggesting unless there's is video tape evidence, all eye witness testimony is not credible and should not be allowed? Fundamentally we clearly disagree. Eye witness testimony is still good, credible evidence, even if it's not always accurate. Stating that the killer was dressed in a clown suit versus being dressed as a bear is something i'm confident people won't f*** up. Saying the killer was 10 feet from the victim versus 3 feet is something that I can admit may be wrong. But people recognize that. Jurors understand that. No one goes in believing that the person claiming they saw something with confidence actually saw what they saw. I literally get this every day in my job. I'll have 5 witnesses to an event and their recollections are all slightly different. The general jist is pretty consistent, it's the tiny details that may differ.

 

I'm not really sure what the argument is anymore. All i'm saying is that generally speaking I would tend to believe that cops have a better ability to see an event unfold and then recall those events in a report because they have been specifically trained to do that. That's their job. Jo Blow on the street seeing an event unfold is usually just going about his/her day, not planning to analyze an entire situation that's unfolding. They are less equipped for that.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

So you're suggesting unless there's is video tape evidence, all eye witness testimony is not credible and should not be allowed? Fundamentally we clearly disagree. Eye witness testimony is still good, credible evidence, even if it's not always accurate. Stating that the killer was dressed in a clown suit versus being dressed as a bear is something i'm confident people won't f*** up. Saying the killer was 10 feet from the victim versus 3 feet is something that I can admit may be wrong. But people recognize that. Jurors understand that. No one goes in believing that the person claiming they saw something with confidence actually saw what they saw. I literally get this every day in my job. I'll have 5 witnesses to an event and their recollections are all slightly different. The general jist is pretty consistent, it's the tiny details that may differ.

 

I'm not really sure what the argument is anymore. All i'm saying is that generally speaking I would tend to believe that cops have a better ability to see an event unfold and then recall those events in a report because they have been specifically trained to do that. That's their job. Jo Blow on the street seeing an event unfold is usually just going about his/her day, not planning to analyze an entire situation that's unfolding. They are less equipped for that.

And I would counter that there's a solid chance that the additional stress of being a police officer offsets any skill or training they receive in such matters, and then submit a proposal to the national science foundation to study such things if I were a social scientist. I would then be told no, this research is unimportant because social science is not a "core science" according to the current Congress.

[EvilMonkey]

I would then be told no, this research is unimportant because social science is not a "core science" according to the current Congress.

And yet people get money to study why monkey masturbate and how come lesbians have a higher rate of obesity. I guess those are core, eh?

[Milkman delivers]

And I would counter that there's a solid chance that the additional stress of being a police officer offsets any skill or training they receive in such matters, and then submit a proposal to the national science foundation to study such things if I were a social scientist. I would then be told no, this research is unimportant because social science is not a "core science" according to the current Congress.

 

Maybe just pick one social topic to harangue about at a time? You get hard to follow sometimes.

[illinilaw08]

Who's going to take the time to do a study on that?

 

Why don't you think that's a logical assumption? Cops are trained on how to deal with emergencies, are they not? They're trained on the best way to analyze situations as they come upon them and/or as they happen, are they not? You don't think it's a logical assumption that that training would make them better equipped in those situations than everyday Joe Schmo? I'm not talking 100% of the time, i'm talking generally.

 

Let's put it this way, if cops aren't better, we have a serious issue with our training practices. They absolutely should be given that criminal convictions are predicated on their reports and recollections and testimony in court. That's a fundamental aspect of our judicial system.

 

Isn't this thesis - cops have better powers of observation than lay people - a dangerous thesis without empirical evidence supporting that conclusion?

 

I'd be willing to wager that many people on juries come in with that same bias. If true, that means that jury are predisposed to trust an officer over a lay witness based on a thesis that hasn't been proven.

 

Honestly, I think that's actually a real issue. When I was a prosecutor, in bench trials, judges were far more likely to give weight and credibility to an officer's testimony than the other side. In jury trials, the jury was more likely to find the officer more credible.

 

That's a problem when eye witness testimony is inherently unreliable to a certain degree. There are facts and circumstances that can give weight to the testimony (I once had an officer testify that he remembered a specific incident from two years prior because his mom was on a ride-along with him). But I find it hard to believe that there's a profession that is inherently better at eye witnessing without some foundation being laid...

 

[StrangeSox]

Right, that's really all I was driving at. That's a hugely important and impactful assumption to be making without any real justification to back it up.

[southsider2k5]

How much different is it to assume that the judges and lawyers know the law better then other people because that is what they are trained for?

[Balta1701]

How much different is it to assume that the judges and lawyers know the law better then other people because that is what they are trained for?

You can work to learn information, it can be a specific goal.

 

Is "working to learn how to recall things accurately" something that there is similar training for? I've never heard of such training, it's just being asserted that it's a skill that would be picked up. That you drop someone off in a court room and they get used to it.

[southsider2k5]

You can work to learn information, it can be a specific goal.

 

Is "working to learn how to recall things accurately" something that there is similar training for? I've never heard of such training, it's just being asserted that it's a skill that would be picked up. That you drop someone off in a court room and they get used to it.

 

That's right, I am sure all they teach at the police academy is brutality techniques.

[Balta1701]

That's right, I am sure all they teach at the police academy is brutality techniques.

Is there training that actually works to improve eyewitness memory recall? Does such a training exist and actually produce quantifiable results? Again I've never heard of it and there was no reply to that question in your comment so given the lack of one of those I'm going to assume you believe the answer is no until you reply with something useful and educational.

[Jenksismyhero]

Right, that's really all I was driving at. That's a hugely important and impactful assumption to be making without any real justification to back it up.

 

Training. For the 10th time. They get training. And they have more experience and exposure to it. That's justification enough. It's not like i'm making this up out of thin air. No, I don't have a study to back me up. But I think it's a logical assumption to make.

 

 

How much different is it to assume that the judges and lawyers know the law better then other people because that is what they are trained for?

 

Or literally any other aspect of life wherein training and repetition occurs. It's a safe assumption that someone who does something more often is going to be better at it than someone who doesn't.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Is there training that actually works to improve eyewitness memory recall? Does such a training exist and actually produce quantifiable results? Again I've never heard of it and there was no reply to that question in your comment so given the lack of one of those I'm going to assume you believe the answer is no until you reply with something useful and educational.

 

Part of the problem with eye witness testimony is that people aren't actually witnessing things in their entirety, so they often fill the gaps with something they think they saw. Or they see something but they don't actually focus on it enough to recall it properly later. Cops are trained to analyze entire situations as they come upon them. They're trained to catch characteristics of people so they can recall them later. It's necessary for the paperwork they have to eventually fill out. And it's something they do on a routine basis.

[Balta1701]

So, papers that say "working memory training techniques that are currently available are ineffective" are popping up repeatedly in the searches I'm doing.

 

Link

Link - high stress situation tests for officers reduced working memory performance but improved training in other areas

Inherent working memory correlates with incorrect decisions in shooting tests

[Balta1701]

Part of the problem with eye witness testimony is that people aren't actually witnessing things in their entirety, so they often fill the gaps with something they think they saw. Or they see something but they don't actually focus on it enough to recall it properly later. Cops are trained to analyze entire situations as they come upon them. They're trained to catch characteristics of people so they can recall them later. It's necessary for the paperwork they have to eventually fill out. And it's something they do on a routine basis.

Except that while filling out those documents they're also doing exactly what you said in the first line, filling in the gaps with things they think they saw. They're training in that skill too.

[illinilaw08]

How much different is it to assume that the judges and lawyers know the law better then other people because that is what they are trained for?

 

Let me put it this way: in a courtroom, I am required to lay foundation that someone is an expert - training, experience, publications on the subject, recognition in that community. If I was testifying as an expert on the law, the lawyer would have to ask questions regarding my three years of law school, 7 years of practice, etc. in order to establish that I was an expert on that subject.

 

I don't have to do that regarding officers and observation. It's a much more subjective area. When I was a prosecutor, I would rely on the fact that the badge carried a certain amount of weight in the courtroom, and anything specific to that incident that might make it more memorable. But I'm not aware of any training or science that makes an officer better at accurately remembering a crime scene than a random lay witness.

 

 

I don't really have an answer for this one. I think it's an interesting subject, and I'd be interested to see if education or experience have a meaningful impact on the reliability of eye witness testimony.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

So, papers that say "working memory training techniques that are currently available are ineffective" are popping up repeatedly in the searches I'm doing.

 

Link

 

Seems to deal with some kind of commercial therapy for ADD symptoms, not really what we're talking about here.

 

Link - high stress situation tests for officers reduced working memory performance but improved training in other areas

 

No one is disputing that getting shot at is going to mess with you a little bit. Not really the situations we're talking about here either.

 

Inherent working memory correlates with incorrect decisions in shooting tests

 

Seems to deal with if cops are shown a video that pisses them off, they'll be pissed off and make higher degree of shooting mistakes. Again, not shocking and not really relevant to what we're talking about.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Jenksismybitch